Talk:Windows Picture and Fax Viewer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OK dear friends have at it. I appreciate all your good editing. Phil talk 18:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] suggestions
- WMF, EMF (and maybe other) formats should be added
- "but .. has to be associated ... if ... open with another program" : this is not precise, the association is only needed for double-clicking. The whole of these phrases is not at all specific to this program but applies to any other document type resp. program in the same way. Maybe this "additional info" could go somewhere else than in the introduction. (It is already mentioned (somehow) somewhere else.)
- I have some scepsis about the "TIFF" thing further down (editing capab's?), in any case this would be contradictory to the "viewer only" statement at the end of the introduction.
- The whole of this article should be reconsidered in view of what is wikepedia... (e.g., I can't see the interest of the screenshot of a part of the help page - why not rather a screenshot of the program itself when launched to view something ?....)
— MFH: Talk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- What is the name of the executable file?
- There is no particular exe file that brings out the viewer, but instead the shimgvw.dll. --Aeon17x 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Horrible, horrible!
This piece of software tends to render PNG's incorrectly. I work for a company that produces compiler software and as such I examine a lot of dot-generated renderings of graphs which contain representations of source code. At some point I was extremely surprised to notice that in one graph, a + operator has magically been replaced with a - operator, because a vertical line (the middle one of the image) was completely missing. I wasted quite some time before noticing that in fact the image was correct, but the viewer was wrong! Wouter Lievens 14:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is not an NPOV issue. What we need here (in section Criticism) is a "reputable publication" giving words to the complaint; see WP:NOR. Lambiam 11:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad image
Image:WindowsPictureacp.png looks really bad, as if it was upscaled without interpolation. Someone should make a new version. --Michiel Sikma 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I uploaded one zoomed to 150% percent, please take a look if it's okay. --Aeon17x 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Silver lining
Go to [1] and see if your browser passes the test. IE and FF don't. I don't have Opera, so can't say. Now download the pictures and open with the subject of the article.
[edit] NPOV/weasel words in the article
I don't think this article has an NPOV:
- 'Apart from its rudimentary image rotating tool...'—this should be rewritten to emphasise the 90 degree rotation in both directions. Let the reader, not the writer, decide if it's rudimentary.
- '...the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer only views, and does not edit images'—an image viewer is meant to do just that—view images.
- '...it sometimes causes entire lines to not be rendered, which can be very confusing when examining critical image data'—how can you tell the difference between 'confusing' and 'very confusing'? If the image data isn't critical, but a line's missing, does that mean it's not confusing?
- '...but it can easily be replaced as the default by another viewer/editor...'—does the word 'easily' need to be included?
- 'It even supports lossless rotation of images'.—this sounds like it was written by someone who was expecting the new image viewer to do a lot less, and then he or she was surprised.
Do people agree? I'm going to flag the article in the meantime.
Michael2 05:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
